1. Central venous Access device SeCurement And Dressing Effectiveness for peripherally inserted central catheters in adult acute hospital patients (CASCADE): a pilot randomised controlled trial.
- Author
-
Chan, Raymond J., Northfield, Sarah, Larsen, Emily, Mihala, Gabor, Ullman, Amanda, Hancock, Peter, Marsh, Nicole, Gavin, Nicole, Wyld, David, Allworth, Anthony, Russell, Emily, Choudhury, Md Abu, Flynn, Julie, and Rickard, Claire M.
- Subjects
CATHETER-related infections ,PERIPHERALLY inserted central catheters ,PERIPHERAL central venous catheterization ,SURGICAL dressings ,NOSOCOMIAL infections ,BACTERICIDES ,ADHESIVES in surgery ,ATTITUDE (Psychology) ,CATHETERS ,CHLORHEXIDINE ,COMPARATIVE studies ,HOSPITAL patients ,INTRAVENOUS catheterization ,RESEARCH methodology ,MEDICAL cooperation ,MEDICAL personnel ,PATIENT satisfaction ,POLYURETHANES ,RESEARCH ,TIME ,PILOT projects ,PRODUCT design ,EVALUATION research ,RANDOMIZED controlled trials ,TREATMENT effectiveness ,CENTRAL venous catheterization ,MEDICAL equipment reliability ,MEDICAL device removal ,CENTRAL venous catheters ,EQUIPMENT & supplies ,DIAGNOSIS ,THERAPEUTICS ,INFECTION prevention - Abstract
Background: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are commonly used for delivering intravenous therapy. PICC failure is unacceptably high (up to 40%) due to mechanical, infectious and thrombotic complications. Poor securement potentiates all complication types. This randomised controlled trial (RCT) aimed to examine the feasibility of a large RCT of four dressing and securement methods to prevent PICC failure.Methods: This single-centre pilot RCT included 124 admitted medical/surgical/cancer patients aged ≥ 16 years with a PICC. Interventions were: (i) standard polyurethane dressing and sutureless securement device (SPU + SSD, control); (ii) polyurethane with absorbent lattice pad dressing (PAL + Tape); (iii) combination securement-dressing (CSD); and (iv) tissue adhesive (TA + SPU). All groups except TA + SPU had a chlorhexidine-gluconate (CHG) impregnated disc. Feasibility outcomes were recruitment and safety/acceptability of the interventions. The primary outcome was PICC failure, a composite of PICC removal for local infection, catheter-associated bloodstream infection, dislodgement, occlusion, and/or catheter fracture. Secondary outcomes included individual complications, dressing failure and dwell time, PICC dwell time, skin complications/phlebitis indicators, product costs, and patient and staff satisfaction. Qualitative feedback was also collected.Results: PICC failure incidence was: PAL + CHG + Tape (1/5; 20%; 17.4/1000 days), SPU + SSD + CHG (control) (4/39; 10%; 9.0/1000 days), TA + SPU (3/35; 9%; 9.6/1000 days), and CSD + CHG (3/42; 7%; 9.4/1000 days). Recruitment to PAL + CHG + Tape was ceased after five participants due to concerns of PICC dislodgement when removing the dressing. CSD + CHG, TA + SPU (TA applied only at PICC insertion time), and control treatments were acceptable to patients and health professionals.Conclusion: A large RCT of CSD + CHG and TA + SPU (but not PAL + CHG + Tape) versus standard care is feasible.Trial Registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12616000027415 . Registered on 15 January 2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]- Published
- 2017
- Full Text
- View/download PDF